SkinsD Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 I think this show is one of the best on tv. I also think these kids are off base. LINK Five orphaned siblings who moved into a new dream home on the hit ABC television show "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" are suing the network, the company that built the house and the couple who took them in after their parents died. The children range in age from 15 to 22. They claim that after "Extreme Makeover" built a new nine-bedroom mansion for them to live in with Phil and Loki Leomiti, the Leomitis engaged in "an orchestrated campaign" to drive them away by insulting them and treating them poorly. The children ultimately moved out of the Leomitis' home in Santa Fe Springs, a small city southeast of Los Angeles, and are living separately with friends, said Charles Higgins II, the eldest sibling. Their complaint, which was filed Wednesday, alleges fraud and breach of contract. It seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. "What we're really seeing is the collision between reality TV and the perception reality TV seeks to create in the minds of the general public," said their lawyer, Patrick Mesisca. ABC said in a statement that "It is important to note that the episode was about the rebuilding of the Leomiti family's existing home to accommodate the inclusion of the five Higgins siblings, whom the Leomitis had invited into their lives following the death of their parents." People who answered the phone at the Leomitis' home initially said the couple had no comment and later referred questions to ABC and to Endemol USA, the television show's production company. Endemol publicist Melissa Armstrong said the company had not yet reviewed the claim. The parents of the Higgins children died 10 weeks apart in the spring of 2004 the mother of breast cancer and the father of heart failure. The Leomitis, who knew the children from church, opened their home to them in July 2004, according to the lawsuit. Producers of "Extreme Makeover" learned of the children's plight from a television newscast. Workers demolished the Leomitis' house in February and then built the new one. "Extreme Makeover" producers arranged for the siblings to receive cars, groceries, computers, stereos and other gifts. The builder, Pardee Homes, paid off the mortgage on the new house but the Leomitis retained the title, according to the lawsuit. Around the time the episode first aired in late March, the siblings moved out. Mesisca, the attorney, acknowledged Wednesday that the siblings were never promised a house in writing. But the network's statements and actions could legally be considered a promise, he said. "We were promised a home," said Charles Higgins II. "They broke that promise." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 Maybe....maybe not.....if the family only took them in so they could get a new free mansion...then perhaps they aren't......you never know some people aren't that good in this world... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinzfan4life Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 If the family did this just for the house, the kids beef should be with the family not with the show. IMO, the show did what they were supposed to, build this "family" a new house. I dont see how the show is liable for the families internal beef. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dks1240 Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 i dont see why they would sue extreme makerovers. seems to me they did exactly what they agreed to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rictus58 Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 They included the show in the lawsuit because the show has $. The other family probably doesn't have tons of cash to settle a stupid lawsuit. ABC does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 Originally posted by rictus58 They included the show in the lawsuit because the show has $. The other family probably doesn't have tons of cash to settle a stupid lawsuit. ABC does. The family has the title to the home, though, so they could theoretically sell it. That's unless they have something in the contract stipulating they have to keep it for "x" amount of time, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 Your contact information for your hate mail is here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rictus58 Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 Originally posted by ntotoro The family has the title to the home, though, so they could theoretically sell it. That's unless they have something in the contract stipulating they have to keep it for "x" amount of time, of course. True, but, if the kids won the lawsuit, the worst that could happen if the family didn't want to sell the home is they hold on to it, the other family puts a lein on the property. The kids collect when either, the people die, or they do decide to sell the home. In either case, its a crappy lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 I agree it's a crappy lawsuit. No doubt about that. It wasn't as if the family knew they were getting a home out of this. They took these kids in out of the kindness of their hearts, then the show found out about it. I'd like to have been a fly on the wall in that home to see if the kids were difficult rather than believe the Parents just tried to basically shove them out of their own home. I'd like to see if these kids had history of behavioral issues even with their birth Parents. Unfortunately, the Parents are deceased and we can't ask them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 Man, there is no where near enough information to formulate an opinion based on this small article. Either side could be right, the kids could have been in it for the money, but the family could have as well. Until more information is disclosed, I have no opinion on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 Chom... the only problem with the Parents being in it for the money was that they had no idea some network TV show was going to build them a home, then absolve them of the mortgage. Now... if someone can prove that they did a 180 and tried to basically throw the kids out after all was said and done, then that's a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.